RabiaSiddiquiweek3

Do you agree or disagree with McLuhan when he defines comics as an extension of photographic media? In Marshall McLuhan’s article, //Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, he talks about ‘hot’ and ‘cool’ media. Hot media, such as television, does not require a lot of thought because when viewers are watching it, the programs are designed in a way that is easily understandable. However, cool media, such as photographs and comics, require a lot of thought and effort in order to understand the message that is being conveyed. Also, in cool media, different people can interpret things in different ways. Whereas with movies and television shows, though people can still interpret things in different ways sometimes, it is not likely. //  I do not agree with McLuhan when he defines comics as an extension of photographic media. This is because the way pictures are interpreted is much different than the way comics are. A comic is accompanied by text and is often a series of pictures that tell a story. Whereas photographic media is one picture that captures a moment and may have text in it, but doesn’t have to. Also, pictures and paintings usually have a lot of attention to detail because it is a single picture. However, detail is not an important aspect of comics because the main point of it is explaining a plot or understanding the text. Though both photographic media and comics are ‘cool’ media and require a lot of thought in order to interpret it, they are completely different types of media and are not an extension of each other.